The requirements for a review in cases involving violation of ban on visits

A defendant was convicted in the District Court of violating section 168 of the Penal Code. He had violated a ban on visits under section 222 a of the Criminal Procedure Act, which had been upheld by the court, against a slightly mentally disabled woman with whom he had a romantic relationship. The Court of Appeal set the conviction aside because the District Court had not adequately considered whether the ban was a violation of the ECHR. The Supreme Court's majority of four justices found that a ban on visits issued by the court should in principle be relied on in a subsequent criminal case, unless the ban contains so many flaws that it must be considered a nullity. It is also a prerequisite that the question of whether the ban is contrary to the ECHR is dealt with properly. In the individual assessment, the majority noted that the Court of Appeal had based itself to the right of review of administrative decisions, which is more far-reaching than the right of review of court rulings. This was an error of law. One justice dissented, stating that there are no limitations on the competence to review the ban on visits in the light of the ECHR in the criminal case. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was set aside. Dissenting opinions 4-1.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) 

Area of law: Criminal procedure, restraining order. Sections 222 a and 170 a of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 8 of the ECHR. 

Key paragraphs: 47-52.

Justices: Webster, Matheson, Ringnes, Steinsvik, Hellerslia